[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Axiom-developer] Axiom Conference Call Sept 14, 2006

From: Bill Page
Subject: RE: [Axiom-developer] Axiom Conference Call Sept 14, 2006
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:31:40 -0400


On September 14, 2006 5:32 PM you wrote:
> Tim Daly writes:
> [...]
> | 10) There was a discussion of which version (Gold, Silver, or
> |     Build-improvements) to choose when trying to port to a system.
> | 
> |     Tim's take on it was that the question revolves around the
> |     issue of whether the system is known to build on the target.
> |     If it is known to build then the only issue is whether the
> |     new Makefiles in Build-improvement works. If it is not known
> |     to build then Gold should be used so we can isolate the 
> |     Makefile bugs from the source code bugs.
> I always thought it is "silver". 
> I thought build-improvements should die (or be closed) once 
> I'm finished.

This issue was related to the fact that I recently sent you some
patches for building Axiom on Solaris 10/GNU from the build-
improvement sources. Tim wants to apply these changes to Axiom Gold
sooner rather than waiting for them to tricle through Silver to

Tim is also very motivated to produce a successful build of Axiom
on MAC OS/X. I suggested that using the build-improvements branch
to do this port might be easier because of the build from system
GCL option (I also forgot to emphasise the build out-of-source).
But Tim prefers to work with the Gold distribution.

Tim is probably right that my building Solaris with the
build-improvements sources was probably a little pre-mature,
but I just like working with build-improvements so much more
than Gold, that I could not resist... :) And at least in this
little exercise I did not find anything that I would classify
as a Makefile bug.

Bill Page.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]